Historians often claim that the grit and triumph of a president’s legacy emerge with time, for better or worse. Often, it isn’t until decades later that the effects actualize fully.
Hints of President Barack Obama’s legacy are slowly beginning to emerge.
Politico released an in-depth examination Monday detailing the Obama administration’s alleged attempts to curtail Project Cassandra, a DEA campaign to expose a money-laundering scheme in which “proceeds from Latin American drug-running were being funneled to Hezbollah.” Hezbollah is the pro-Iranian Lebanese militia, which U.S. Department of State has declared a foreign terrorist organization since 1997, that has allied with, among others, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Venezuela and North Korea.
The Obama administration “tamped down” the investigations in order to preserve the Iran nuclear deal, which lifted economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for the alleged suspension of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
Politico spoke with Project Cassandra agents, who claim that the Obama administration stifled or undermined the agents’ attempts to prosecute high-ranking Hezbollah operatives involved in cocaine trafficking and money laundering, “allowing [the Hezbollah operatives] to remain active despite being under sealed U.S. indictment for years.”
Project Cassandra agents allege that officials at the Justice and Treasury departments repeatedly hindered Project Cassandra agents’ attempts to pursue “investigations, prosecutions, arrests and financial sanctions” against key figures in the far-reaching scheme.
“This was a policy decision, it was a systematic decision,” David Asher, a financier who helped establish Project Cassandra. “They serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down.”
Media pundits have largely hailed the Iran nuclear deal as one of Obama’s legacy-defining foreign policy achievements, with no mention of Hezbollah, which holds violently anti-Israel, anti-U.S. stances.
What is Project Cassandra?
Launched in 2008, the DEA Project Cassandra uncovered far-reaching money laundering, “evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities,” Politico reported.
Project Cassandra made use of law enforcement agencies in seven countries, seeking to highlight “the dangerous global nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism. ”
For eight years, DEA agents conducted a high-stakes investigation, using wiretaps, undercover operation and informants “to map Hezbollah’s illicit networks, with the help of 30 U.S. and foreign security agencies.”
Agents uncovered an international drug trade, from South America to Africa, Europe, the Middle East and the U.S., where drug funds where funneled through an array of businesses, including used car lots.
Hezbollah operatives allegedly used the drug money to buy weapons that have been used in Syria.
In late November, Politico ran an article detailing the Trump administration’s aggressive stance against Hezbollah.
A nonpartisan ethics watchdog has named Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) as one of its top five ethics violators of the year.
The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) named Schultz as its second-worst violator of 2017 for her continued employment of Imran Awan, a House IT aide, after he was accused of stealing computers and data systems in February.
Schultz finally fired Awan on July 25 when he was arrested at Dulles International Airport on bank fraud charges while trying to flee to Pakistan. Awan was indicted in August.
FACT called for an ethics investigation into Schultz in July.
Wasserman Schultz refused to remove Awan from House payroll and compensated Awan with taxpayer funds for several months—even though he was barred from the House computer system which would prevent him from performing any reasonable IT work. In fact, Wasserman Schultz only fired Awan after he was arrested on bank fraud charges attempting to flee the country the morning of July 25, 2017.
[…]
Wasserman Schultz is in clear violation of House Ethics Rules as Members are directly responsible for ensuring their staff are only paid for official public work.
In August, Schultz defended her continued payment of Awan, saying she fired him when he was arrested. The lawmaker had expressed concern that Awan, a Pakistani-born Muslim, was being targeted because of his religion and ethnicity.
Schultz is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee. She stepped down under pressure in 2016 after hacked emails revealed she and other party leaders showed favoritism for Hillary Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) in the Democratic primary fight.
The top ethics offenders of 2017, according to FACT, were the unknown members of Congress who have settled sexual harassment cases with taxpayer funds.
Others on the list included Rep. John Lewis (D., Ga.) for employing his chief of staff as his campaign treasurer simultaneously and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D., Fla.) for what FACT called “overcompensating” his girlfriend with taxpayer funds.
via Washington Free Beacon
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com
We’re all supposed to believe that President Trump, as a candidate, colluded with the Russian government to “steal” the 2016 election. There’s no serious evidence to that effect, despite a massive FBI investigation, a Congressional investigation, and a special counsel investigation initiated by the Department of Justice.
But there is clear evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Russian government to free an Islamic terrorist responsible for the deaths of Americans – all in order to appease Iran to pave the way for the Obama administration’s surrender to the burgeoning Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s escalating regional ambitions.
A little-noticed bombshell report from Josh Meyer of Politico reports that Ali Fayad, a Lebanese arms dealer and “suspected top Hezbollah operative whom agents believed reported to Russian President Vladimir Putin,” was captured by the Czechs in 2014. Fayad had been indicted in the United States already for “planning the murders of US government employees.” But the Obama administration did nothing to push for extradition. Instead, Fayad ended up in Lebanon, where he’s back at his terrorist work; he’s particularly active in supply weapons to the barbarous Syrian regime.
According to Politico, “administration officials also blocked or undermined their efforts to go after other top Hezbollah operatives…And when Project Cassandra agents and other investigators sought repeatedly to investigate and prosecute Abdallah Safieddine, Hezbollah’s longtime envoy to Iran, whom they considered the linchpin of Hezbollah’s criminal network, the Justice Department refused.”
In other words, working with Russia in order to swing the Iran deal trumped the prosecution of people responsible for continuing murder, including murder of Americans.
This isn’t the only evidence of Obama collusion with Russia, of course. In 2012, Obama was infamously caught on tape stating that he wanted Vladimir Putin to grant him some breathing room on missile defense, pledging “more flexibility” after his election.
So we know that Obama was willing to collude with Russia on foreign policy to effect both his re-election effort and to implement his Iranian deal. But we’re supposed to be worried that the Mueller investigation is focusing on the Trump transition team after the 2016 election?
via Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2wzeEU9
Monday in Washington, DC while delivering the National Security Strategy address, President Donald Trump declared the strategy “recognizes that we cannot secure our nation if we do not secure our borders.”
Trump said, “First we must protect the American people, the homeland and a great American way of life. This strategy recognizes that we cannot secure our nation if we do not secure our borders.”
He added, “So for the first time ever, American strategy now includes a serious plan to defend our homeland. It calls for the construction of a wall on our southern border, ending chain migration and the horrible visa and lottery programs, closing loopholes that undermine enforcement and strongly supporting our border patrol agents, ICE officers and Homeland Security personnel.”
Panicked ANTIFA Website Deletes Article About Sabotaging Train Tracks in Olympia After Derailment — Read It Here
December 18, 2017 by Joshua Caplan
On Monday morning, an Amtrak train derailed while crossing an overpass in Dupont, Washington. Law enforcement say at least six people are dead and 78 others were injured. Independent journalist Mike Cernovich tweeted an archived link to a now deleted article from “prominent,” far-left website It’s Going Down, on an ANTIFA group bragging about pouring concrete on train tracks in Olympia, WA.
The story is from April, but a more recent post from another far-left website, published just 9 days ago, is still up.
Police raided an ANTIFA encampment in Olympi following a train being sabotaged by anti-fracking activists — but the anarchists claiming credit for the act have vowed to continue until “every officer is down.”
Earlier this year, a prominent #Antifa website published an article tacking credit for the sabotage of train tracks in Olympia, WA. In this article they claimed to have poured concrete on the tracks. It has since been deleted,” tweeted Far-Left Watch.
Earlier this year, a prominent #Antifa website published an article tacking credit for the sabotage of train tracks in Olympia, WA. In this article they claimed to have poured concrete on the tracks. It has since been deleted. #Amtrakhttp://pic.twitter.com/aHfwdSM1ce
“Here is an article from 9 days ago where #Antifa extremists claim they sabotaged train tracks. This is the far-left. #Amtrak,” tweeted Far-Left Watch.
During this week we attached wire and jumper cables to the main Union Pacific rail line running through the state of Nebraska to disrupt rail signals and delay trains that mainly carry coal from the mountainous west to population centers in the east. Inspiration for us came from the blockade in Olympia, Unist’ot’en camp in unceded Wet’suwet’en territory, and other actions large and small across turtle island. until the complete destruction of time itself, love and rage from the middle of nowhere
Cernovich then tweeted an archived link to the deleted piece from It’s Going Down.
ANTIA group Its Going Down, in a now-deleted blog post, bragged about sabotaging train tracks.
“Early in the morning of April 20th we poured concrete on the train tracks that lead out of the Port of Olympia to block any trains from using the tracks.” https://t.co/od1OF1bdoE
Early in the morning of April 20th we poured concrete on the train tracks that lead out of the Port of Olympia to block any trains from using the tracks. We took precautions to notify BNSF (the train company) – we called them and we used wires to send a signal that the tracks were blocked. We did this not to avoid damaging a train, nothing would bring bigger grins to our faces, but to avoid the risk of injuring railway workers.
This action was done to disrupt the movement of trains carrying proppants used in natural gas fracturing. These train tracks are part of a system of pipelines, fracking wells, mines, clearcuts, control centers, fiberoptics, dams, highways and factories that cover the planet and are physical manifestations of a process that is destroying the ecosystems, cultures, and inhabitants everywhere. Behind this network of infrastructure there are politicians, CEOs and bureaucrats who have private security, cops, prison guards, non-profit directors, PR consultants and the legacy of 500 years of colonization to back them up. We oppose all of these manifestations, infrastructural, personal and ideological. We blocked the train tracks because we want to blockade the entire web of domination that is slowly killing us.
While law enforcement is still investigating the cause behind the train’s derailment, ANTIFA reportedly sabotaging the tracks and then deleting the post raises serious question about there potential involvement in Monday’s incident.
Comments
As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning
via The Gateway Pundit
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/SIPp5X
Major League Baseball star pitcher Cole Hamels and his wife are giving away their $9.75 million Missouri mansion and land to a Christian camp for children with special needs and chronic illnesses.
Pitcher Cole Hamels of the Texas Rangers (Image source: YouTube screenshot)
Camp Barnabas has two locations in the Ozarks and notes in its values that “Christ comes first always” and staffers “point people to Christ in everything we do.”
Image source: YouTube screenshot
The organization doesn’t just serve kids with special needs but also serves campers’ siblings and parents, as well as missionaries.
Image source: YouTube screenshot
Hamels — who’s pitched for the Texas Rangers since 2015 after starting his career with the Philadelphia Phillies — said the work of Camp Barnabas “really pulled on our heartstrings,” the camp noted. “Seeing the faces, hearing the laughter, reading the stories of the kids they serve — there is truly nothing like it … we felt called to help them in a big way.”
The Hamels’ 32,000-square-foot mansion on Table Rock Lake in Branson, also sports more than 100 acres of land — and the whole package will let the camp “further our ministry and truly change thousands of lives for years to come,” said Krystal Simon, the camp’s chief development officer.
Jason Brawner, CEO of Camp Barnabas, added to the Hamels Foundation that the organization was “strategically looking for ways to expand our ministry outside of a summer camp. We have no doubt this gift will allow us to do just that.”
Cole and Heidi Hamels added that Camp Barnabas is “changing the way the world sees disability ministry.”
The couple started began building the mansion in 2012 when Hamels was still with the Phillies, WCAU-TV reported, adding that it went up for sale in August 2017 before the Hamels changed their minds.
On Thursday, MSNBC’s Ali Velshi interviewed former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell about that agency’s move to eliminate the Obama administration’s “Open Internet Order,” better known as its “net neutrality” regulations.
Velshi was in over his head, and as people who find themselves in such a situation often do, he resorted to hostility, bluster, and an accusation of condescension to try to make up for his repeated attempts to make a tired little-guy-versus-big-guy argument against the FCC’s action.
Velshi’s primary problem was that he can’t or won’t accept the idea that governance over the internet has returned to where it was during the over 20 years before Obama’s FCC decided that the internet should be regulated like a century-old public utility monopoly, and that there are plenty of pre-2015 laws in place to prevent the alleged discriminatory disasters he fears.
McDowell knows better, and irritated Velshi immensely by repeatedly citing the key laws which will still apply to any genuinely anti-competitive activity by internet service providers and other players. He initially made his legal points in each of the opening snips which follow in the first of three videos excerpted from the interview:
ALI VELSHI, MSNBC: … We may end up freezing the Internet in time, in that these big companies exist as big companies, and there will never be a competitor to Facebook or Google or Amazon.
ROBERT MCDOWELL, FORMER FCC COMMISSIONER: Right. So there’s a lot of hype, it’s very confusing and gets very legal very quickly.
So what the FCC did in February 2015 was put a 1934 law, the Communications Act of 1934, part of it called Title II, onto broadband internet networks.
But before that, that’s when all those companies you just cited were actually started in dorm rooms and then became some of the world’s largest corporations. And so they did that before this Title II thing.
So the term by the way, net neutrality, has no legal definition. So the question is, before February 2015, what worked? How did this ecosystem work to allow those entrepreneurs to do all that? And that was —
VELSHI: Right. But we didn’t use as much bandwidth. Part of the issue was that everything we do now uses internet bandwidth. That’s been coming over the years.
MCDDOWELL: And before February 2015 as well.
So you have the Federal Trade Commission Act, for instance. You have the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act. Those are three very powerful federal statutes that kept the internet open and free prior to February 2015.
(Snip 2, from 3:05 to 3:27)
VELSHI: (if I try to compete against one of the internet behemoths) Some (business) people will say, “Why would you ever use my service as opposed to the existing one that paid for the fast lane?”
MCDDOWELL: Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, in section 3 of Clayton Act. You just triggered all three of those sections. It would be an antitrust violation. The Federal Trade Commission could go after them also under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. it was against the law before February 2015, and it will be against the law as of today.
Velshi’s argument that expanded bandwidth use somehow justified the imposition of net neutrality three years ago, or that it should prevent its withdrawal now, is inane. Netflix has been streaming video since 2007, and streaming exploded during the next eight years before the Obama-era order appeared.
The key question is whether internet infrastructure going forward has been expanding as dramatically as it needs to in order to keep up with the needs and expectations of consumers and businesses.
The answer, since February 2015, has been “no.” In an unexcerpted portion of the interview, McDowell noted that annual investment in internet infrastructure has fallen by 18 percent since February 2015, primarily because of regulatory uncertainty. That’s why the just-issued “Restoring Internet Freedom” statement that “The Commission’s (2015) Title II Order has put at risk online investment and innovation, threatening the very open internet it purported to preserve” resonates.
In the next two snips contained in the second of three videos, Velshi began to lose patience, and then started to get angry:
Transcript:
(Snip 3, from 4:49 to 5:11)
VELSHI: I don’t feel like or having a really, a really fair conversation here. I’m trying to have a conversation on the merits of the principle of unintended consequences of reversing net neutrality, and you’re dropping a lot of legalese.
MCDOWELL: The legalese are the merits, though, Ali. So that’s —
VELSHI: We know full well that sometimes the Federal Trade Commission doesn’t —
MCDOWELL: That’s what’s at play here, and maybe you haven’t read these laws. You don’t understand them.
VELSHI: I’m very familiar with net neutrality, Robert. I’m really not that familiar with being condescended on.
(Snip 4, from 6:21 to 6:47)
VELSHI: The point is, for every point you make, I can make another one. It would be much more useful for us to have a broader conversation about whether or not there may be unintended consequences to reversing net neutrality. Right?
MCDOWELL: Okay, so why didn’t the Obama DOJ —
VELSHI: We’re not in a court of law right now. There’s no judge in front of us.
MCDOWELL: I understand. But to your point, you’re saying consumers are unprotected. That’s not true.
VELSHI: I did not make that argument ONCE. I’m not sure why you think I made that. I’ve only made one argument, and it’s about startups and entrepreneurs.
McDowell apparently did a good job of interview prep. Although Velshi didn’t cite consumers in the “conversation” he claimed he was trying to have on Thursday, as seen in a November 21 video at MSNBC, he and MSNBC co-host Stephanie Ruhle have been very outspoken about the alleged impact of the FCC’s move on consumers.
For those who would rather not endure watching that video, here are two graphics from their presentation which prove it:
“Everyone else” obviously includes consumers. So McDowell’s assertion that Velshi believes that “consumers are unprotected” is true.
In reality, it’s only true, as Velshi indirectly admitted in that November 21 video, if “some other agency doesn’t enforce” its rules along the lines McDowell described. Why should anyone expect that career bureaucrats won’t jump at the idea of carrying out their enforcement missions?
In the final two snips contained in the third video, Velshi tried the same argument again, and got the same law-based response — at which point he just gave up, accusing McDowell of not participating in the “conversation” he wanted to have:
Transcript:
(Snip 5, from 7:49 to 8:09)
VELSHI: If someone has an advantage in streaming their content over the internet, an established player has an advantage because they have the money to be able to buy better, faster, quicker access and prevent somebody else from getting it that — the incumbent is favored over the start up. That’s the only point I wanted to make. That’s the only point —
MCDOWELL: And that would be illegal, and that’s the point I’m making. What you just said is already illegal.
(Snip 6, from 8:31 to 8:55)
VELSHI: This would’ve been and much better conversation we were actually having a conversation.
MCDOWELL: We are. I’m trying to teach you about the state of the law, which is what is going on.
VELSHI: Thanks very much. Robert McDowell is former FCC commission of 2006 to 2013.
MCDOWELL: Sorry, it’s not a catastrophe.
VELSHI: Who said it was a catastrophe? I love the internet. I didn’t say it was.(As noted, Velshi and Ruhle said just that on November 21. — Ed.)
MCDOWELL: It’s going to be great.
VELSHI: I don’t know who you’re — Maybe he can’t hear me.
MCDOWELL: I can hear you just fine.
VELSHI: Maybe he’s hearing some other anchor arguing with him —
MCDOWELL: Nope.
VELSHI: — because he’s fighting a different battle than I’m fighting. I’m not actually having this argument with you.
So the “only point” Velshi had really wasn’t a point at all.
<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
Velshi was similarly rude and hostile towards another guest whose arguments he couldn’t counter in August, when he condescendingly attacked a Donald Trump defender who contended that the President deserves a large share of the credit for the relatively strong performance of the overall economy and the stock market this year, telling him “You can’t just lie on TV.”
Former White House Chief of Staff and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon commended Japan’s Prime Minister saying that Shinzo Abe recognized the importance of nationalism and identified him as a “Trump before Trump.”
Visiting ex-White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Sunday lauded Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for his Trump-like effort to infuse Japan with a spirit of nationalism while unleashing a volley of scathing criticism against what he called the “mainstream media,” likening them to “running dogs” with a globalist agenda.
Bannon, who was in Tokyo over the weekend to attend a gathering of conservatives, said Japan was on the right track under Abe, whom he called a “Trump before Trump.”
“He talked about a nation’s pride, a nation’s destiny, a nation taking control of its future,” Bannon said when talking about Abe in his speech at the Japanese Conservative Political Action Conference 2017, co-hosted by the Japanese Conservative Union and the American Conservative Union.
As such, Bannon, who is now head of the right-wing news website Breitbart News, credited Abe for trying to “re-instill the spirit of nationalism” and for not shying away from discussing “vital” issues including Japan’s “rearmament.”
TEL AVIV — The United Nations Security Council is considering a draft resolution that would seek to reverse U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Reuters reported on Sunday.
The draft, prepared by Egypt, does not refer to either the U.S. or to President Trump. It was circulated between the 15 members of the council and according to Reuters enjoys support, but the U.S., which wields veto power in the council, is likely to shoot it down.
A vote on the draft resolution, Reuters reported, can take place as early as next week. It would need nine votes to pass and no veto from the U.S., France, Britain, Russia or China.
Arab diplomats began looking for a UNSC resolution to reverse Trump’s decision soon after its announcement.
The U.S. president’s declaration was also rejected by the European Union, with foreign policy Chief Federica Mogherini saying the 28-country body would like to see Jerusalem become the shared capital of both Israel and the Palestinians.
The Czech Republic, however, announced that it recognized the western part of the city as Israel’s capital and according to Israeli media is planning to move its embassy there.
The U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley praised Trump’s decision as “the just and right thing to do.”
The draft resolution “affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”
Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon was quoted by Reuters saying, “No vote or debate will change the clear reality that Jerusalem” is the capital of Israel.
A UN Security Council resolution adopted in December 2016 “underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations,” Reuters reported.
via Breitbart News
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/uktKj3
A Virginia homeowner was furious when a jury pooled donations to pay the court fines for an illegal alien convicted of stealing more than $5,000 worth of jewelry, a report says.
A jury convicted 19-year-old Sandra Mendez Ortega of robbing Lisa Copeland of her engagement and wedding rings when the convict was serving as a housemaid for the victim. Despite the conviction, the jury felt so sorry for the pregnant Ortega that they pooled their money to pay the $60 fine levied upon the perpetrator.
The victim in the case criticized the jury for its out-of-court donations, insisting that their actions made a mockery of the law.
“I just pray that they’re never in my shoes,” Copeland told the Washington Post.
Copeland went on to point out that the problem is not exactly the $80 in donations the jurors pooled but that the convict never apologized or showed any remorse for her crime. “If she had accepted accountability, I would be okay with all of this. The fact that she won’t accept accountability makes it wrong,” Copeland said.
Jury foreman Jeffrey Memmott defended their actions.
“The general sentiment was she was a victim, too,” Memmott insisted. “Two of the women [jurors] were crying because of how bad they felt. One lady pulled out a $20 bill, and just about everybody chipped in.”
Another juror exclaimed that they acted out of compassion. Even though they were compelled to convict the thief, Janice Woolridge added, “There’s also got to be some compassion somewhere. Young people make bad decisions. We just couldn’t pile on any more.”
The victim was outraged by the whole situation.
Copeland initially reported the theft of the rings to the Fairfax City police, whose investigation turned up nothing. But police said that after some time, Ortega returned the rings and apologized to them and, with their help, wrote a short note of apology.
But Copeland says that she was never shown any apology letter, and Ortega never apologized to her in person. The victim was also upset that the jury was never told that Ortega is an illegal alien, a fact prosecutors claimed “wasn’t relevant” because it had nothing directly to do with the theft of the jewelry.
“It really irritates me that she came here and committed a felony,” Copeland’s husband, Jeff, said. “People are coming here because there is opportunity here. But when they come here and commit crimes, that’s where you’ve got to draw the line.”
Copeland was also infuriated when members of the jury later confessed that they tried hard to find ways not to convict Ortega at all. Copeland insisted that the whole chain of events was never aired in court.
“The whole time she was telling the sob story,” she said. Copeland told the Post that after Ortega took the rings, “she lied to the cops, she lied to her employers. She didn’t turn in the rings, she made somebody else do it. She confessed but claimed that the rings were in the bathroom. And then she tried to blame her boss.”
Despite the fact that the rings were worth enough that the conviction was for felony theft, the softhearted jury decided against jail time and only recommended a $60 fine, which meant that their $80 in donations ended up giving the thief $20 extra after paying her inexpensive fine.
Unable to speak any English, Ortega thanked the jurors through an interpreter. “I became happy when I heard they wanted to give me that money,” the interpreter said Ortega told them. “Thank you very much to all of them; God bless them.”
Comments
As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning